ncloud_ncs_restore_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and covers it well: it discloses that the restore is temporary ('for the given number of days'), that it returns HTTP 202 for a new restore and 200 if a restored copy already exists, and that the copy is readable via get_object. This goes beyond a simple statement of intent and gives the agent actionable behavior expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and endpoint; the second packs in usage guidance and status-code semantics. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the purpose, the restore lifecycle, and response semantics. Minor gaps exist: it does not mention whether 'days' has an upper bound or default, and it does not describe the response body structure. However, an agent can call the tool correctly with the provided information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely references the 'days' parameter ('for the given number of days') but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain defaults, maximums, or interactions between parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Request a temporary restored copy'), the target resource ('DEEP_ARCHIVE (Archive Class) object'), and the endpoint (POST /{key}?restore). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling object tools by specifying the archive class and by referencing related operations (ncloud_ncs_get_object, ncloud_ncs_head_object) for the restore flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: the tool is for restoring archived objects so they can be read, and it tells the agent to use ncloud_ncs_get_object after restore and ncloud_ncs_head_object to check progress. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid (e.g., ncloud_restore_object), but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.